By AMELIA THOMSON-DEVEAUX and JONATHAN J. COOPER

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s dramatic changes to the federal government haven’t emerged as an obvious political winner or loser, according to a new poll that indicates some Americans may be giving him the benefit of the doubt for now on his Department of Government Efficiency.

Related Articles

Measuring the cost of extending Trump’s tax cuts becomes a flashpoint in Congress

Trump reportedly moves to fire several national security officials over concerns they’re not loyal

EEOC chief shifts focus to investigating DEI but the methods provoke an outcry

Rubio tries to reassure wary allies of US commitment to NATO as Trump sends mixed signals

Answering your questions about President Trump’s vast new tariffs

The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that about 4 in 10 U.S. adults “somewhat” or “strongly” approve of Trump’s handling of Social Security and a similar share approve of the way he’s managing the federal government.

Those numbers are almost identical to Trump’s overall presidential approval, suggesting that his Republican administration’s moves to fire thousands of federal workers, close Social Security Administration field offices, effectively shutter entire agencies and cancel thousands of government contracts haven’t yet created a significant independent backlash — or spurred independent support.

Views of Trump and his adviser Elon Musk are still largely intertwined, despite Democrats’ recent focus on Musk. The two men suffered a defeat on Tuesday when the conservative candidate they had endorsed for the Wisconsin Supreme Court was defeated. Musk and the groups he backed spent more than $21 million in the race, the first major test of how voters feel about Musk’s political impact.

The poll, which was conducted before Tuesday’s election, found that both Trump and Musk are viewed more negatively than positively and are largely rated similarly by Americans overall. Very few Americans have a positive view of one man and a negative view of the other.

Trump’s actions on DOGE largely mirror his overall approval

Immigration emerged in the poll as a relative strength for Trump, while trade relations with other countries appeared to be a relative weakness. Unlike those issues, U.S. adults’ views on Trump’s handling of Social Security and management of the federal government are indistinguishable from his overall approval rating.

This suggests that Americans may have a less developed opinion of Trump’s actions in this area, or they may be waiting to weigh the impact.

There are hints in the poll that Trump’s pledge to cut government spending may be resonating. Closer to half of U.S. adults approve of Trump’s approach to government spending, which is slightly higher than his overall approval rating.

“I love DOGE,” said Adam Marefka, a 42-year-old facilities maintenance specialist from Birmingham, Alabama, and a Trump supporter. “They’re cutting wasteful spending. We need a smaller government, and there’s only one way to do that.”

Others see recklessness. Or, as Paul Vaitkus, of St. Petersburg, Florida, put it: “Total craziness.”

“They’re not going to just trim where it needs to trim,” said Vaitkus, a 66-year-old retired cardiologist. “They’re going to do huge damage to agencies, and it’s going to erode the ability of those agencies to provide services to American taxpayers.”

Trump’s handling of Social Security is more popular with adults age 60 or older than with younger adults. Despite that, older adults — who tend to be more conservative overall but would also be affected by cuts or changes to Social Security — are no more likely to approve of how Trump is handling his job generally.

Even if there’s no clear backlash now, slashing popular programs like Social Security could still quickly take Trump and Musk into perilous territory. An AP-NORC poll conducted in January found that while Republicans and Democrats were divided on whether the U.S. government is spending “too much” or “too little” on the military, assistance to the poor and education, solid majorities of both said that “too little” was being spent on Social Security.

“All I want from this country is the government to help the seniors and the veterans. Not to take care of them. Help them,” said George Collins, 80, a retired bagel maker living in Fort Mohave, Arizona. “It’s hard when you’re living on Social Security.”

Collins, a Trump supporter, said the president’s second term is going much better than his first, and he wishes Trump’s critics and the courts would get out of his way.

“I wish people would just give him the time,” Collins said. “Let him try to fix it at least.”

Few Americans dislike Musk and support Trump

Despite Democrats’ attacks on Musk, the opinion of the influential billionaire remains largely indistinguishable from views on Trump. About half of U.S. adults have a “somewhat” or “very” unfavorable opinion of both Musk and Trump, according to the poll, while about 3 in 10 have a “somewhat” or “very” favorable view of both men. Only around 1 in 10 have a positive view of Trump and a negative view of Musk.

Trump picked Musk to oversee a push to shrink the federal government, cull the federal workforce and slash spending on agencies disfavored by the White House, prompting a flurry of legal action.

Rooting out waste is an important goal, said Julio Carmona, a 40-year-old health professional in Stratford, Connecticut. But Carmona believes Musk, the world’s richest person, lacks significant government experience and is not the right person for the job.

“You pick a guy who has the means that he has, that part of it just doesn’t sit well with me,” Carmona said. “There could’ve been so many different qualified people that he chose, but he chose Elon Musk to do that.”

That sliver of Americans with distinct views of Trump and Musk appear to largely be Republicans. About half of Republicans, for example, have a very favorable view of Trump, while about 4 in 10 say that about Musk. They’re far from a majority of people who share their party identity, though — about two-thirds of Republicans have a positive view of both Trump and Musk.

Cooper reported from Phoenix.

The AP-NORC poll of 1,229 adults was conducted March 20-24, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

The Gophers athletics department is exploring a potential naming-rights deal for Williams Arena and the U will partner with Independent Sports & Entertainment in the process, the U said Thursday.

This is part of the U’s efforts to create more revenue streams with the incoming estimated annual expense of $20.5 million in revenue sharing to student-athletes. That’s known as the “House settlement” and it’s expected to be finalized this month and start later this year.

The naming-rights for the venue nicknamed The Barn “is a tremendous opportunity for a company to align themselves with the University of Minnesota and with Gopher Athletics,” Director of Athletics Mark Coyle said in a statement. “We look forward to working with ISE to find a naming rights partner that will help us continue to provide world-class experiences for our student-athletes.”

For fiscal year 2024, the Gophers reported $151.1 million in total operating revenues and $152.5 million in total operating expenses. The goal for the U is a balanced budget, but it’s unclear how the U will carve out funds for this big new expense.

“We’ve been making hard decisions within our athletics department in terms of some of the things we will do as we move forward to help cover that cost of $20.5 million,” Athletics Director Mark Coyle told reporters on March 14. “We feel very confident that we will be at that revenue share number. … We feel like we will get there. We feel confident about that and feel like we will give our program the best chance to succeed.”

A naming-rights deal the venue nicknamed “The Barn” would help shrink the financial gap but not bridge it by itself.

For example, the Gophers and 3M in 2017 entered into a 14-year, $11.2 million sponsorship agreement for naming rights to the home of men’s hockey, Mariucci Arena. It’s now known as 3M Arena at Mariucci.

During the pandemic, the Gophers cut three men’s sports — gymnastics, tennis and track and field — at the end of the 2020-21 academic year. Coyle said a budget shortfall and Title IX compliance were two reasons why cuts were necessary.

The U currently has a combined 22 men’s and women’s sports and it’s unclear if more individual sports teams might cease operations in the near future.

ISE, according to its website, is an agency that works in management, sales, consulting and marketing, with services in strategic guidance, brand creation and global partnerships. They list a handful of clients, including ESPN, the College Football Playoff, the WNBA and college programs such as Mississippi, West Virginia, Vanderbilt and Washington State among others.

Due to the revenue sharing demands, Coyle said in March that the U has set aside a plan to explore remodeling options for Williams Arena. A year ago, the Gophers tabbed Populous, an architectural design firm, to do a feasibility study into building a new venue or possible renovations of the existing arena, which first opened in 1928.

When remodeled in 1950, the home of the men’s and women’s basketball teams was named Williams Arena after Dr. Henry L. Williams, a former Gophers football coach (1900-21) who did not have deep connections to U basketball.

If the U secures a naming-rights parter, they plan to recognize within the stadium Williams Arena’s nearly 100-year-old history and Dr. Williams, a member of the College Football Hall of Fame.

Related Articles

Gophers men’s basketball welcomes two new players Wednesday

How Gophers coach Niko Medved will go into the NCAA transfer portal

Two Gophers recruits back out of men’s basketball program

Niko Medved’s path to Gophers included steering him off hockey rinks

Another Gophers men’s basketball player enters NCAA transfer portal

By MATTHEW LEE, AAMER MADHANI and ZEKE MILLER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has moved to fire several senior White House National Security Council officials soon after he was urged by far-right activist Laura Loomer to purge staffers she deemed insufficiently committed to his Make America Great Again agenda, several people familiar with the matter said Thursday.

Loomer presented her research to Trump in an Oval Office meeting on Wednesday, making her case for the firings, the people said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive personnel matters. Vice President JD Vance, chief of staff Susie Wiles, national security adviser Mike Waltz and Serio Gor, the director of the Presidential Personnel Office, took part in the meeting, the people said.

Laura Loomer uses her cell phone near Trump International Golf Club after police closed off the area following the apparent assassination attempt of Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump in West Palm Beach, Fla., Sunday, Sept. 15, 2024. (AP Photo/Terry Renna)

NSC spokesman Brian Hughes declined to comment on the meeting or the firings, insisting that the White House does not discuss personnel matters.

Related Articles

EEOC chief shifts focus to investigating DEI but the methods provoke an outcry

Rubio tries to reassure wary allies of US commitment to NATO as Trump sends mixed signals

Sweeping Trump tariffs draw dismay, calls for talks from countries around the globe

Answering your questions about President Trump’s vast new tariffs

Democrats demoralized by Trump get a boost from Wisconsin voters and Cory Booker’s speech

Loomer, who has promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories, was a frequent presence on the campaign trail during Trump’s 2024 successful White House run. More recently, she’s been speaking out on social media about some members of Trump’s national security team that she insists can’t be trusted.

Loomer in a posting on X declined to comment

The move by Trump to push out staff comes at a moment when his national security adviser Mike Waltz is fighting back criticism over using the publicly available encrypted Signal app to discuss planning for the sensitive March 15 military operation targeting Houthi militants in Yemen.

A journalist, The Atlantic magazine’s Jeffrey Goldberg, was mistakenly added to the chain and revealed that Trump’s team used it to discuss precise timing of the operation, aircraft used to carry out the strikes and more.

Waltz has taken responsibility for building the text chain, but has said he does not know how Goldberg ended up being included.

Faculty members at the University of Minnesota are accusing university leaders of censorship after statements in support of Palestinians were removed from the websites of six U departments and centers.

The University of Minnesota Twin Cities chapter of the American Association of University Professors said the statements were “suddenly and forcibly removed” on Saturday night from the sites within the College of Liberal Arts.

The organization said statements were removed from the sites of the departments of American Indian Studies; American Studies; Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature; Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies; and Asian American Studies, as well as the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies.

“This not only violates academic freedom but also incinerates First Amendment rights. The answer to disagreement is not censorship. The answer to disagreement is more speech,” said Michael Gallope, who served as the chair of the department of Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature when the department issued a statement on Israel’s war in Gaza in the fall of 2023.

Gallope said he believes U President Rebecca Cunningham singled out Israel’s war in Gaza as “off-limits” for public comment by university scholars.

The statement that had been posted to the website of Gallope’s department read, in part: “We stand on the principle of academic freedom to speak truth to power and to call for the declaration of an immediate ceasefire, a complete halt to illegal settlements, and an end to the siege.”

But that statement — and the five other statements cited by the professors’ organization — now appear to have been removed from their respective websites.

The university did not respond to a request for comment about the removal of those statements.

Faculty leaders said they learned about the decision to take down the statements from CLA Dean GerShun Avilez during a Zoom call on Saturday.

“It’s unclear why statements related to Palestine were removed while statements on other matters of public concern were not. The provost didn’t even have the courtesy to invite the affected departments to have a conversation first,” Aren Aizura, associate professor and chair of Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies, said in the American Association of University Professors press release.

In March, the university’s Board of Regents passed a controversial resolution prohibiting U colleges, centers, institutes and “other academic or non-academic units” from making statements on “matters of public concern or public interest.”

That resolution prohibited colleges, centers and other university units from sharing such statements through university channels. The resolution said it was not intended “to curtail the free expression of individuals within the University community, including faculty exercising academic freedom or other individuals expressing their views on matters of public concern or public interest.”

Gallope said he can’t understand the university’s reasoning for singling out the six statements on Israel, Palestinians and the war in Gaza, and removing them with little notice. He said the statements were attributed to individuals or groups of faculty, and accompanied by disclaimers stating they were not speaking for the university.

“Our expectation at a public university is that we do not engage in arbitrary and capricious censorship of faculty views on the website — instead that we develop a policy, as we have for any other matter, and a policy that can be understood and debated by shared governance, so we understand what the criteria are for public speech of matters of public concern,” Gallope said.

Related Articles

Israel expands Gaza offensive and issues new evacuation orders

Trump wants Egypt and Jordan to take in Palestinians from Gaza. Here’s why the idea is rejected